Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Attorney Novak represented Kelly between 2007 and 2012. The two executed a contingency attorney fee agreement that granted Novak lien rights over any settlement Kelly received. In 2011, Novak filed a probate petition which alleged Kelly was a pretermitted spouse of Teitler and negotiated a considerable settlement. The probate court approved the settlement which awarded Kelly a substantial interest in the Dana Teitler Trust. Kelly died. Novak filed suit to enforce the attorney lien in the 2007 fee agreement. The probate court denied the petition, holding that the proper procedure to recover fees was by claim against Kelly’s estate under section 9000; plaintiff was required to file a creditor’s claim within one year of Kelly’s death; the statute of limitations barred the claim; and section 5000(a), which provides a nonprobate transfer, was inapplicable. The court of appeal reversed. Novak had not forfeited a claim under section 9391, that he was an equitable lienholder and did not need to file a creditor’s claim in probate. An assignment provision in the settlement agreement in the event of Kelly’s death did not destroy Novak’s pre-existing attorney fee lien rights. View "Novak v. Fay" on Justia Law

Cypress sued, alleging that Maxim, had misappropriated a trade secret, or was in the process of doing so, by seeking to hire away specialists in touchscreen technology, a field in which Cypress and Maxim compete. Maxim responded that it was entitled to solicit prospective employment candidates in Cypress’s workforce and that there was no evidence it had acquired, or was seeking to acquire, any trade secret. After failing to secure temporary injunctive relief, and failing to obtain an order placing under seal evidence derived by Maxim from public sources, Cypress dismissed the action. The trial court awarded Maxim attorney fees under Civil Code 3426.4, which authorizes such an award to the prevailing party where a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets is found to have been made in bad faith. The court of appeal affirmed, stating that the finding of bad faith was amply supported by evidence that defendants did no more, and Cypress accused them of no more, than attempting to recruit the employees of a competitor. Cypress dismissed the suit to avoid an adverse determination on the merits. View "Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc." on Justia Law

The ACLU submitted a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request to Los Angeles County for invoices from any law firm in connection with nine lawsuits “brought by inmates involving alleged jail violence.” It also sought disclosure of service agreements between the County and two consultants and an “implementation monitor.” The County agreed to produce copies of the requested documents related to three lawsuits, which were no longer pending, with attorney-client privileged and work product information redacted. It declined to provide statements for the remaining lawsuits, which were still pending. It averred that the “detailed description, timing, and amount of attorney work performed, which communicates to the client and discloses attorney strategy, tactics, thought processes and analysis” were privileged and exempt from disclosure under Government Code 6254 (k), and 6255(a), and by Business and Professions Code 6149 and 6148. The superior court granted a writ of mandate insofar with respect to billing records, but denied the petition with respect to the agreement between the County and the implementation monitor. The court of appeal vacated, holding that because the CPRA expressly exempts attorney-client privileged communications, the tension must here be resolved in favor of the privilege. Because the invoices are confidential communications under Evidence Code 952, they are exempt from disclosure under Government Code 6254(k). View "Los Angeles Bd. Of Supervisors v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Paul retained attorney Patton to draft an amendment to his revocable living trust. Paul signed the “Trust Amendment,” which, as drafted by Patton, named his wife, Helen, and his children, Stephen, David, Alan, and Nancy, as beneficiaries. Stephen and David also are the successor trustees. Following Paul’s death, they petitioned the probate court to modify the Trust Amendment, alleging it failed to conform to Paul’s intentions by erroneously granting Helen an interest in brokerage accounts and personal and real property. In that probate court action, Patton admitted the Trust Amendment did not reflect Paul’s intention that his brokerage accounts and personal and real property be divided among his children. Stephen and David settled the probate court action with Helen. The children filed the legal malpractice action, alleging that Patton failed to exercise reasonable care in performing legal services by failing to draft the Trust Amendment in a manner consistent with the decedent’s intentions. The trial court dismissed. The court of appeal reversed. The trial court erred in concluding as a matter of law that the children could not establish Patton owed them a duty as beneficiaries; they should be permitted to amend their complaint to allege such a duty. View "Paul v. Patton" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were represented by defendant attorneys in an action against State Farm arising out of the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Court-appointed retired judges presided over a 1997 aggregate settlement. In 2012, one of the plaintiffs conducted a random sampling of other plaintiffs’ awards in the action, which, they claimed, revealed that the defendants had not properly disbursed or accounted for the settlement funds and had concealed this conduct from plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sought damages for failure to obtain their informed consent to an aggregate settlement and misappropriation of and failure to account for the settlement funds. The trial court dismissed, finding the claims based on speculation and barred by the statute of limitations. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that the statute of limitations had not run under Probate Code section 16460 because they had no notice of wrongdoing and that actions for violations of Business and Professions Code section 6091 in failing to provide an accounting are not barred because their action was filed within one year of failure to comply with the statute. Where there are facts sufficient to put one on inquiry notice, the fraud statute of limitations starts running even when the defendant is a fiduciary. View "Britton v. Girardi" on Justia Law

Utrecht represented Loanvest in a lawsuit arising out of a loan that was secured by an interest in Oakland property. Utrecht successfully opposed Madow’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would have prevented Loanvest from paying out of the proceeds of the property’s sale. In 2013, Madow became manager of Loanvest, which then sued Utrecht, claiming breach of the duty of loyalty and “looting” Loanvest to pay other obligations. The trial court dismissed under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16), finding that the claim was based on an act in furtherance of the right of petition and that Loanvest failed to make a prima facie showing of its ability to prevail in the action. The court of appeal reversed. Loanvest is not a third party allegedly harmed by Utrecht’s representation of another client, but Utrecht’s former client that allegedly was harmed as the result of his “egregiously breaching the duty of loyalty.” That the complaint refers to another as Utrecht’s “true client” and Loanvest as his “purported client” does not alter that admitted fact. A lawsuit that concerns a breach of duty does not depend on the exercise of a constitutional right. View "Loanvest I, LLC v. Utrecht" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with lewd and lascivious conduct with a child after his girlfriend’s daughter reported molestation. The prosecutor told the defender (Hinman) that the People would accept a settlement offer for a prison term of eight years. Defendant was unwilling to settle, but Hinman continued to attempt to persuade defendant. The prosecutor stated that he was considering refiling the charges to allege penetrative acts, which carried a possible life sentence and provided Hinman with a translation of defendant’s police interrogation, which had been conducted in Spanish. The translation contained additional lines, fabricated by the prosecution: “[DEFENDANT]: I know. I’m just glad she’s not pregnant like her mother.” Hinman informed defendant it included an admission of penetration. Defendant denied making the incriminating statements. Hinman sought to uncover why the incriminating lines were not present in the translation prepared by his office. Days later, Hinman requested “the exact CD reviewed by [the People’s] transcriber/interpreter,” but got no response. Later that day, the proscutor admitted to falsifying the transcript. The trial court dismissed, finding the conduct “egregious, outrageous, and … shocked the conscience.” The court of appeal affirmed, finding that defendant’s constitutional right to counsel was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s misconduct. View "People v. Velasco-Palacios" on Justia Law

Amis alleged that his former attorneys committed malpractice by “caus[ing]” him to execute a settlement agreement that converted his company’s corporate obligations into Amis’s personal obligations without advising Amis that he had little to no risk of personal liability in the underlying litigation. All advice he received from the attorneys regarding the settlement agreement was given during mediation. The attorneys argued that Amis could not obtain evidence to support his claims, and that the law firm could not produce evidence to defend itself, because the disclosure of such evidence was barred by the mediation confidentiality statutes, Evidence Code section 1115. The trial court agreed on both counts and entered summary judgment for the firm. The court of appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court has broadly applied the mediation confidentiality statutes and all but categorically prohibited judicially crafted exceptions, even in situations where justice seems to call for a different result. View "Amis v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought the disqualification of the law firm of AlvaradoSmith, which: (1) previously represented another law firm in an attorney fee dispute; and (2) in this case, represented an expert seeking consulting fees arising out of the same underlying litigation as the attorney fee dispute. The Court of Appeal issued a stay order and order to show cause, and later concluded that due to AlvaradoSmith's wide-ranging access to privileged information in the first representation and the substantial relationship between the two matters required the firm to be disqualified. View "Acacia Patent Acquisition v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Guam attorney Lujan was sued in two lawsuits in Hawaii, followed by another in California, which could have cost him millions of dollars, loss of reputation, and possibly his license to practice law. He hired a law firm with offices in San Francisco and Guam to represent him, which included filing two more proceedings. The representation generated significant billings about which Lujan complained, refusing to pay a large balance. The firm withdrew from the representation, and sued. A jury returned a verdict for the firm of $945,947.90 “together with its disbursements and costs, including expert witness fees, in the amount of $_____, prevailing party attorneys’ fees as allowed by contract in the amount of $_____, and pre-judgment interest as allowed by contract in the amount of $_____.” The court later awarded $331,545.51 in prejudgment interest. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. The firm filed a memorandum of costs and a motion for attorney fees based on the engagement letter Lujan had signed. Following thousands of pages of briefing and oral argument, the trial court forwarded $1,532,674 in attorney fees, and $123,227 in expert witness fees, based on a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer. The court of appeal affirmed. View "Calvo, Fisher & Jacob v. Lujan" on Justia Law